• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

Wrong Time to Cut Troops in Korea

The Bush administration plans to make significant additional cuts in the size of US troop deployments in South Korea. Such reductions may leave North Korean leaders with the impression that it is their recently enhanced nuclear capabilities that are driving the American withdrawal and embolden the reclusive state to take provocative actions in the months before to the US election.

Link Copied
Published on Jun 7, 2004
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

Press reports indicate that the Bush administration plans to make significant additional cuts in the size of US troop deployments in South Korea. These come on top of the transfer of 3,600 American troops from South Korea to Iraq announced last month. The cut may ultimately lead to a one-third reduction of the 37,000 troops that defend South Korea from a possible strike by the North. More importantly, however, these troops help reinforce deterrence and stability in the most heavily militarized part of the world and their reduction may pose unnecessary risks in this dangerous part of the world. Such reductions may leave North Korean leaders with the impression that it is their recently enhanced nuclear capabilities that are driving the American withdrawal and embolden the reclusive state to take provocative actions in the months before to the US election.

The Bush administration deserves credit for seeking to transform the military to deal with new threats and to further enhance its global reach and reaction time. The demands of undertaking such changes would be daunting at any time, let alone when the US military must contend with a dangerous war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and global commitments in the war on terrorism. But there is also the very real and growing danger of a nuclear North Korea. This means that certain commitments must be maintained or enhanced, even at the price of slowing military transformation. By some estimates, North Korea may now possess as many as 9 nuclear weapons, four times the estimated arsenal when President Bush took office.

The facts on the ground in Korea may argue for an increase, not a decrease, in the size and nature of the US military deployments in South Korea and East Asia. North Korea’s continued nuclear program and the failure of current efforts to stop and roll back Pyongyang’s activities threaten to destabilize the entire region. Any sign that the US is not committed to the defense of our closest allies in the region only add to the danger and instability. Preserving and enhancing the US-ROK-Japanese alliance should be a top priority for the United States.

North AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaSouth KoreaNorth KoreaForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyNuclear Energy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Japanese troops take part in a counter-landing live fire exercise as part of the annual Balikatan joint military drills on May 04, 2026 in Laoag, Ilocos Norte province, Philippines.
    Article
    The Two Logics Driving Japan’s Security Policy

    Japan’s revision of its three strategic documents reflects an intention to keep the United States engaged in the region while Japan fills any vacuums of U.S. power to preserve the Indo-Pacific order.

      • Ryo Sahashi

      Ryo Sahashi

  • Robot arm with disposable test tube virus sampling in laboratory
    Commentary
    Caught in the Middle: Chinese Biotech Firms’ Divergent Responses to U.S. Sanctions

    Chinese biotech companies have been on the receiving end of U.S. economic coercion. Yet their responses have differed significantly because firm and state interests are not uniformly aligned. For Washington, treating all Chinese tech firms the same, irrespective of their actual interests, risks pushing them farther into Beijing’s corner.

      Xue Gong

  • Two people in blue PPE standing over large metal rolls
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Inside the Global Race to Erode a Battery Manufacturing Monopoly

    Over the past decade, China has moved from marginal player to major producer of all things batteries. The United States, Europe, and others are aiming to balance the market.

      Milo McBride

  • Research
    Coercive Nuclear Threats Under Domestic Dissonance

    A look at how public opinion influences the credibility of coercive nuclear threats,and how it enables and constrains strategies of nuclear coercion.

      Lauren Sukin, Samuel Seitz

  • Aerial View of a Geothermal Energy Plant in the Imperial Valley of California near the Salton Sea
    Paper
    A Geothermal and Nuclear Strategy for the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

    The DFC should focus on advanced, low-carbon energy sources, prioritizing areas where the United States has comparative advantages.

      • Noah J. Gordon

      Noah Gordon, Liana Schmitter-Emerson

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.